One of the things I get annoyed by is improvisation groups thinking they're the first. The first whatever; first group doing student improv in their town, first group doing an improvised musical, first group improvising a play entirely in gibberish. It's never the first.

In particular, one thing that happens is that a group of actors and comedians start doing some improv games (in a Whose Line Is It Anyway? style), then go to Chicago, or LA, and come back full of ideas about doing long-form improvisation, saying things like "this kind of improvisation is fairly new to this country". (Yes, there's a specific group that's sparked this rant, but since I haven't seen them perform I can't pass judgement so I won't bother linking to them.)

Usually, by "fairly new", they mean in the last five years, which isn't true. (The latest wave of improvisation started 5-10 years ago in this country, and there were various people doing full-length improvised shows, one way or another, around in the first half of that, and indeed before it, bucking the trend.)

Sometimes, by "fairly new", they mean in the last twenty years, which isn't true. Keith Johnstone was playing with this stuff in the 60s, for instance. (Although he's often better known for things like Micetro these days, which is a shame.)

Rarely, by "fairly new", they mean "after Palestrina", which is possibly true but still seems unlikely (think: bards). Certainly people were improvising narratives back in the Middle Ages quite happily in the UK. If you look farther afield, semi-structured narrative improvisation (where aspects of the story are familiar to the audiences, either using tropes and archetypes, or by using base stories) have been around since before the Romans. Long, long before the Romans.

So stop trying to claim you're new; just be interesting, and exult in that.

(While we're here, can lazy reviewers stop comparing every impro group with Paul Merton? KTHXBAI.)

You may have noticed that Talk To Rex is not carrying the DEC spot asking for donations to help the people of Gaza affected by the recent Israeli military action. We believe to do so would undermine our impartiality, not only with Britons thousands of miles away from the Middle East, but with our international audience. We cannot throw away the reputation we have carefully built up across the years as the world's premier source of unbiased sarcasm and sniping at Russell T Davies. While the plight of those in Gaza is not to be underestimated, we feel that not carrying the advert is important in underlining our commitment to mindlessly preserving our ante-bellum reputation in the changing world of the 21st century. Bring us an appeal for everyone affected by the ongoing events, be they Arab, Israeli or Western observer and we can talk.

We will sleep soundly tonight, secure in the knowledge that more people are aware of the campaign due to our action than would have bothered to watch another film about deserving others voiced by bloody Jeremy Vine.

Following my previous post:

Dear Mr Aylett

Thank you for your email to Nick Raynsford MP, I am responding on his
behalf.

Nick has always supported much more transparency and less scope for
abuse, and indeed has claimed lower expenses than most other MPs for
many years. Nick does not claim any expenses other than the employment
of staff and communicating directly with constituents.

Most of the media coverage on this issue has focused on the ability of
MPs to claim expenses on the cost of maintaining and furnishing a second
home. This element in the allowances does not apply in Nick's case, as
an Inner London MP, he does not need a second home and does not qualify
for the allowance.

Nick has not signed EDM's, regardless of the merits of the case, for
some time as he feels they have been devalued by trivial and excessive
use.

Yours sincerely

[redacted]
Senior Caseworker & Research Assistant

Note that the claim about transparency doesn't really sit with his voting record on transparency, although I'm prepared to concede a point here as he has generally abstained and so hasn't really shown his colours, and in any case publicwhip.org.uk has a tricky job actually gluing this stuff together helpfully.

Note, more worryingly, that this is a form response that fails to give any indication what he's going to do. (Although to be fair, with talk earlier today about a three line whip, he might have simply been hoping the issue would go away rather than have to face expulsion from his party over doing the right thing.) At least, though, it is a form response that talks about him specifically, talking about why I as his constituent should be happy with his attitude towards expenses. And I am, but that's not what I was worried about in the first place, because I already knew that he is a low claimant; nor am I interested specifically in the second home issue. My letter actually talked about the need for transparency to foster trust in government (not dissimilar to what President Obama said yesterday) — this part has not been addressed in the response.

Nick last signed an EDM on 17th December 2008 (calling for a vote on the third Heathrow runway over environmental impact), suggesting that either he or his office has a very short memory, or a different definition of 'some time' than I have. (He hasn't signed any other EDMs this Parliamentary session, so he's probably against them in general, but the above claim is a lie.)

It now looks like this won't go to a vote, and certainly won't in its current form. This is what we wanted, really; however I'm still left with the bad feeling that Nick Raynsford is another bloody weasel.

Parliament (or something that works on their behalf) has been busy getting ready to comply with the High Court ruling from 16th May 2008 that it must publish MP's expenses under the Freedom of Information Act. Seven months of compiling the data, and nearly a million pounds, later and they've decided a better route would be to change the Freedom of Information Act to exclude the data. The vote's on Thursday (you may have missed it around all the Heathrow runway kerfuffle).

This, frankly, is taking the piss.

There's more information from mySociety, the charity that runs TheyWorkForYou and others. Start with their overview, which includes helpful links to things you can do, including writing to your MP to ask them politely to vote against this rat bastard approach to transparency.

(I wrote to mine, but Nick Raynsford MP is against transparency in government to start off with, so I'm not hopeful he'll pay attention. Mind you, I'm not hopeful he'll bother to vote at all, since he generally abstains on transparency issues.)

For what possible reason does the BBC's latest update on the Somali pirates-and-Saudi tanker situation have the title 'Experts' lead Saudi tanker talks? Why not Experts lead Saudi tanker talks? Is there anything in the article that suggests they aren't experts, that they are (in one of the more hideous and over-used expressions in modern parlance) 'so-called experts'? Not that I can see, although I do note that there's almost no actual news in the story, just rumour being peddled by 'correspondents' (that means other journalists), and a lot of weasely sentences that are true no matter what the reality of the situation is.

Of course there's no way of knowing, but this feels like authority figure fear (or "threatening man in the sky effect", which is what I'd like everyone to call it from now on). Ben Goldacre, both in his excellent book 'Bad Science' (I couldn't bring myself to read his blog, because it updates all the bloody time: I waited for the novelisation, on the basis that a film probably isn't forthcoming) and elsewhere (I can't bring myself to subscribe to Guardian feeds either), has been talking about this in the context of science: scientists are seen as authority figures, unfathomable beings issuing pronouncements from on high. I'm sure this view would have shocked Richard Feynman, who would work through important theories himself rather than rely on the authority of other scientists (the story is The 7 Percent Solution, in "Surely You're Joking Mr Feynman!"), but it does seem to be the way many people - or at least much of the media - think.

Right now, for instance, a Google News search for 'scientists' turns up the following headlines:

• Scientists take a step closer to an elixir of youth
• Scientists find way to calculate people's real age
• Scientists test effects of high heels on the body
• Scientists find 'cure' for 'werewolf boy'

I'm sure at least some of them rail against these authority figures for bothering to look at trivia such as high heels and absolute age, or will in editorials once they've had a chance to think about it. But I don't think it's just scientists, and I'm not entirely convinced that the media is responsible for replacing science in the public consciousness with a parody of itself. I think people are simultaneously comforted by the idea that there are experts out there - in whatever field, be it politics or science or entertainment or whatever - and threatened by the same thing.

The thing is, most people are venal, suspicious, selfish and foolish, just like everyone on 24, which I was watching last night and hoping represents in no way whatsoever the reality of the Department of Homeland Security. Or, for that matter, everyone on Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, including the robots, which I'm watching as I write this and hoping represents in no way whatsoever the reality of what happens when we accidentally invent a conscious computing network and discover time travel. I don't want to live in those worlds - but maybe a lot of other people do.

Which is a problem, frankly, because although people may be blind to logic and science, current evidence suggests that the universe isn't. This means that people are deliberately putting themselves at a disadvantage by denying themselves the tools to better understand and think about what they have to deal with out in the real world. Of course, they don't think of it like that - maybe they think they can delegate all that 'hard stuff' to authority figures, or maybe they suspect that really it's all smoke and mirrors, and the scientific method can't tell them anything. Or maybe they think that invisible dinosaurs rule the earth, or that physics is just like in JJ Abrams' head, or that actually all our actions are ruled by evil thoughts from before time began. In which case there's probably not much we can do for them.

But, seriously. Even the robots are stupid. Who wants to live in a world like that?

Anyone watching our latest offering is probably sitting there wondering: are sitcom writing rooms really like that? Do people sit around all day and fling insults at each other while the producer gradually goes out of her mind? Can interns really not open jars of coffee? Is photocopying quite such a dangerous activity?

To be honest, we were never entirely sure while writing it. Sure, we had plenty of experience of uncomfortable writing rooms for stage shows; we'd heard tales from deep within the bowels of the BBC, incidents that were spoken of in hushed tones, with furtive glances to see who was looking. And I once injured myself on a Xerox machine back in 1993.

But that's the UK. Thanks to the wonder of the Internet, people as far away as Australia have been watching. People in Canada. People in America. And that got us thinking: America has sitcoms too, and they have sitcom writing rooms as well - they're famous for it, in fact, as the principal way that TV comedy gets written in Hollywood. Surely their rooms aren't nearly as dysfunctional as we'd made ours to be. But how could we ever know?

Enter Ken Levine, blogger, Talkradio 790 KABC host, oh and Emmy-winning sitcom writer. Some time last year, he got together with Day O'Day, blogger and expert on Personality Radio (seriously: check his website), and between them they run this thing called The Sitcom Room.

Now I'm not suggesting I flew all the way to Los Angeles, camped out in a hotel for nearly 36 hours, ate reasonable Chinese food (it was advertised as bad Chinese food, but frankly I was disappointed), met some great writers, and stayed up afterwards talking American politics until gone midnight - I'm not suggesting I did all that just to find out whether Hollywood writing rooms involve protracted discussions of pheasants. But since we had to do that research, I sure as hell wasn't going to put the other James through all that crap. I mean, come on: he's got delicate skin. It's entirely possible that California would kill him.

The format was pretty simple. At the start, we spent half an hour chatting and vaguely getting to know people. During this time, Ken and Dan were watching carefully to ensure that we'd later be paired up with precisely the people we talked to the least; to facilitate this piece of admin, Ken talked for two or three hours ahead of lunch, giving us some useful background and tips, punctuated by anecdotes and his hatred of a certain scumbag talent agency. Up till then it was pretty much like any other writing seminar you might imagine, only without air conditioning. Then some actors came in and did a fairly bad scene, with the 20 of us trying to keep up putting crosses through the jokes that didn't work in the script.

Then off we went in our teams to rewrite the scene in twelve hours, with a list of studio and network notes (some of which contradicted each other, and some of which made no sense and bore no obvious relation to the scene at all; Ken made a point of being very polite about studio and network execs, but if these notes were at all representative I suspect that's down to tact more than anything).

In the room: I was clearly being passionate about something, although I can't remember what. Actually, one of the most interesting things that happened, which a lot of people commented on, was that you quickly lost sight of who came up with different jokes, different ideas. Despite this, people would get incredibly worked up over particular things: this joke, that story beat, whether we were going to like a character if it appeared he might be fleeing the country to avoid being implicated in the death of an innocent dance teacher. (I was guilty of worrying about the last... and I was wrong.)

The following day, our four totally different takes on the scene were performed for us, letting us see real actors tackle what we'd come up with. I guess for many people, particularly people starting out writing, this would be incredibly helpful; I've at least had that experience before, but it's still the only way to test whether something works. And they did work, all four of them, much to everyone's relief.

You can read Ken's own write-up. We had the mirror. We also had the Hitler joke.

Was it worth it? Absolutely. Besides the fun of meeting new people, writing, and seeing your work performed (because let's face it: I can get all that without travelling five thousand miles), it gave me conviction that I want to keep doing this, and do it more; and the confidence that I'm good enough to. Getting started in writing involves a fair amount of sitting on your own waiting for the words to come, and it's not always clear during those YouTube breaks if you're heading in quite the right direction, or if there's going to be anything there when you arrive.

If I could have got more out of it in any way, I think it would have been that during the writing my group could have asked Ken more questions, and maybe got his input on what we were doing. As it was, whenever he turned up we just acted a bit like naughty school children. "Everything going okay?" "Yes, it's all fine." "Nothing you want to tell me about? No petty larceny, or dead bodies, or lengthy discussions about the relative merits of the sexual organs of different animals?" Admittedly part of that was because of an early visit where a small bombshell was dropped on us (the details of which are sealed under a vow of secrecy) and we had to throw away some of the work we'd done - so every time either Ken or Dan came in after that we were worried they'd announce that the network wanted to replace the entire thing with a musical.

Right at the end, after the read-throughs, and after we'd all had a chance to have another go over our scripts, a few other show-runners came in and talked about their experiences over the years. Despite the impression given by Ken's post, and one or two of the comments from people who weren't actually there, this wasn't a big part of the weekend, but it was useful in its own way (although, I suspect, the sort of thing you could get in some form or another at other seminars and industry courses), and of course contained a load more stories about the sorts of things that go on in a Hollywood writing room.

Although I'm still not sure how much they talk about pheasants.

Thomas Friedman writes an op-ed column in the New York Times yesterday asking how could these companies be so bad for so long? Although I think he's hugely mistaken if he thinks Steve Jobs could turn around GM in a single year (the iPhone took around five years from what I've heard), the rest of it's well worth reading if you're not already bored by this.

The ongoing collapse of the US automotive industry - or rather, their automotive royalty, the Detroit-based Big Three - is an incredible opportunity to move the US forward, which President-Elect Barack Obama won't take. He should take the opportunity to shore up massive adult education programs, retraining the people who will, without question, lose their jobs at some point over this issue; and he should let the companies live or die on their own merits, cushioning the impact for their employees rather than injecting money - be it loans or direct investment - into an industry which has problems that started long before the current financial crisis, and while exacerbated by it are not rooted in the same issues facing the rest of the economy. By doing nothing for the companies, Obama might be letting the most obvious US car manufacturers perish, although that is unlikely (Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code was created to provide a way out for companies without short-term viability but with longer-term prospects). However he would not be killing the US automotive industry, and the companies that survive - including Aptera and Tesla - would come out stronger and more able to compete in the long term.

The problem he has is that it doesn't play well at home to let giants of industry, and mainstays of national culture, go under during the current climate. If the economy weren't in the state it was, it wouldn't be imperative to consider bailing out three companies that are losing to their foreign competition. But right now, Americans will clamor for their government to help domestic industries other than those on Wall Street, and Obama will not want to risk going into his Inauguration with a significantly lower approval rating than he has on the back of his election victory. Although at the moment his transition team (in the voice of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) seems to be recommending loans rather than a bailout, with the rhetoric coming out of the companies themselves and the automotive workers unions, it is difficult to see how the President-Elect will be able to stick this course as the situation continues to worsen for an industry which directly or indirectly employs up to 3% of America's workforce.

The thing is, most industries are completely unlike the financial sector. If America's banks had started folding up like used napkins then everyone would have felt it, in a major way: businesses and people depend on banks for capital, particularly in difficult times. And if savings and deposits had started disappearing, this would have further accelerated loan foreclosures, business foreclosures, personal bankruptcies: you name it. Other industries would have fallen, and so the US government (like others around the world) really had no choice but to step in and do something; the issue was always what, and what the taxpayer would get in return.

However if GM, Ford and Chrysler fold then the knock-on effects, while not small, won't take down untold other industries; companies and individuals that buy or loan their products could switch to other manufacturers. In any case they won't fold: they may enter Chapter 11, allowing them to restructure, prune and refocus; or they may be bought out by other auto manufacturers, which is what happened to the UK car industry, as Don Pittis points out in his argument against automotive bailout measures. Conceivably they could be bought by an investment group and broken up, although that would almost certainly be the worst outcome.

This isn't to say that a major domestic manufacturer in severe financial troubles isn't going to cause a lot of problems. People will lose their jobs; not just those directly employed, but people working for the supply chain companies. An estimated 3-5 million people depend on the Big Three both directly and indirectly, and government has a responsibility to them to help them continue to work, no matter what happens to their employers. That does not mean that there's a responsibility to keep companies alive that cannot compete; it is saddening to let go a former giant, but sometimes it is the right thing to do. Providing the individuals currently dependent on those companies can be given other options, letting the market run its course would likely be the best option.

Put simply, bailing out the automotive industry in America is protectionism. This isn't a failure of regulators causing a market crash; blame cannot believably be lain at the feet of government. This is a simple matter of companies being beaten by others with a competitive edge. Keeping them alive at this point with taxpayers' money is possibly the worst way of spending that money to help those individuals, because it has to be funneled through companies that are - demonstrably, by their inability to continue competing - inefficient. (The reasons for those inefficiencies are complex, and not entirely of their own construction, but this doesn't change the argument.)

Say there is no bailout. The Big Three downsize up to 30% of their workforce, and use the existing $25bn low-cost loans from the federal government to retool and focus on producing cars that are more fuel-efficient; this might require some weakening of the requirements for eligibility for those loans. Instead of the $10bn to $50bn bailout manufacturers were asking for on Friday (depending who you believe and how you count it), the government spends half that on retraining programs for up to 2 million employees who lose their jobs in the near term; that's $5,000 - $25,000 per person, which should cover costs even at the low end. Five years down the line, one or more of GM, Ford and Chrysler may well still end up radically restructuring, out of business, or in the hands of other companies. However the focus will have been on taking care of the people who can no longer find work in the automotive industry, and so in the individual, pain will be much less.

Unions will point out, and are certainly correct, that retraining is stressful and difficult; but this is the world we now live in, and we have to accept that there will always be someone else prepared to do our jobs for less. While it was still impractical due to distance or economic effects for them to compete, this didn't matter; but this is no longer the case, certainly in car manufacture. To continue to compete you either have to be cheaper or better, and right now it seems that the US auto industry is neither. (The workforce, however, may be better than elsewhere; if so by enough margin, or if the other economic effects are right, foreign auto manufacturers will re-employ them. Toyota already has more than ten engineering and manufacturing plants in the US, for instance, and it wouldn't be crazy for the new administration to consider an incentive package to encourage further growth for this and other companies.)

Say, however, that Obama caves, and out of the gate in the new administration (in fact earlier, since the companies may not last that long) we see a bailout of Detroit. Based on what happened with the banking industry, the manufacturers will likely get a better deal out of this than the taxpayer: the government is unlikely to force real change on the corporate beneficiaries by restructuring out existing shareholders and current board members, and although a surprise here would be a welcome dose of reality in how taxpayers' money should be used, putting voting rights in the US government is unlikely to result in the enormous changes required to get the country's major car manufacturers back on their feet; it would likely prove too contentious for the government to invest in a company and then push it through a restructuring that would result in significant job losses.

Barack Obama has said that he wants "to help the auto industry adjust, weather the financial crisis and succeed in producing fuel-efficient cars in the United States". Without incentive or requirement to change, it is difficult to see how they would achieve that; sure, it's possible, but let's not forget that they've been optimistic before, and that the current problem goes back much further. In two or three years time, Detroit will be back in the same position, and we'll have to go through all this again.

That's not real change.